Anuj Vohra

Partner

Overview

Contractors at an impasse with their government customers turn to Anuj Vohra for creative solutions; decisive, actionable guidance; and effective advocacy.  

Anuj litigates on behalf of government contractors across industry sectors in a variety of forums, with extensive experience in bid protests before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. He also assists clients with an array of issues related to contract formation (including subcontracts, teaming agreements, and other transaction agreements), regulatory compliance, internal and government-facing investigations, suspension and debarment, organizational conflicts of interest, and the Freedom of Information Act.

Prior to entering private practice, Anuj spent six years as a trial attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Commercial Litigation Branch. At DOJ, he was a member of the Bid Protest Team—which handles the department’s most complex protests—and served as lead counsel in dozens of matters representing the United States in commercial disputes before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Career & Education

|
    • Department of Justice: Civil Division
      Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch
    • Illinois
      Assistant Corporation Counsel, Constitutional & Commercial Litigation Division, City of Chicago Department of Law
    • Department of Justice: Civil Division
      Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch
    • Illinois
      Assistant Corporation Counsel, Constitutional & Commercial Litigation Division, City of Chicago Department of Law
    • University of Michigan, B.A.
    • University of Illinois College of Law, J.D., cum laude
    • University of Michigan, B.A.
    • University of Illinois College of Law, J.D., cum laude
    • District of Columbia
    • District of Columbia
  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • American Bar Association, Section of Public Contract Law, Co-Chair, Bid Protest Committee
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association
    • South Asian Bar Association

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • American Bar Association, Section of Public Contract Law, Co-Chair, Bid Protest Committee
    • U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association
    • South Asian Bar Association

Anuj's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.27.24

Yet Another Timeliness Trap for the Unsuspecting Protester: A Pre-Award Agency-Level Protest Is Functionally Denied as of the Closing Date for Receipt of Proposals, Even if the Agency Actually Denies it Later

Generally, a GAO protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is timely if filed within 10 days after the denial of an agency-level protest, “even if filed after bid opening or the closing time for receipt of proposals.”  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(3).  Accordingly, the salient consideration for determining when that 10-day clock begins to run is when the agency denies the agency-level protest.  But in Marathon Medical Corp., B-422168.2, February 14, 2024, GAO held that if an agency has not ruled on a pre-award agency-level protest as of the closing date for receipt of proposals, then the protest is deemed denied as of that date—and the protester’s clock for filing a GAO protest begins to run—even if the agency later issues an actual decision denying the protest. ...

Representative Matters

  • LightBox Parent, LP, B-420032.2 (Feb. 24, 2022); LightBox Parent, LP v. United States, 162 Fed. Cl. 143 (Sept. 14, 2022)—Served as lead counsel in the successful defense of an awarded $50 million Federal Communications Commission contract for data mapping services in serial bid protests filed at the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims. 
  • VAS Realty, LLC v. United States, 26 F.4th 945 (Fed. Cir. 2022)—Served as lead counsel in the successful appeal of a trial court dismissal of a General Services Administration lease offeror’s bid protest for lack of standing. The decision is being remanded to the Court of Federal Claims per clarified protester standing requirements. 
  • Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Washington Met. Transit Auth., 16 F.4th 294 (D.C. Cir. 2021)—Served as lead counsel in successful defenses, first in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and then on appeal to the D.C. Circuit, of a Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority escalator repair contract. 
  • Wisconsin Physician Serv. Ins. Corp. v. United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 22 (2020)—Served as lead counsel in the successful defense of a bid protest challenging a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services award of contract for Medicare Administrative Contractor services. 
  • American Small Business League v. U.S. Department of Defense, 411 F. Supp.3d 824 (N.D. Cal. 2019)—Served as lead counsel in the successful defense of Department of Defense invocation of FOIA Exemption 4 to prevent disclosure of contractor documents in response to a FOIA request. The case represented one of the first applications of Exemption 4 following the Supreme Court’s decision clarifying scope of exemption in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019).

Anuj's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.27.24

Yet Another Timeliness Trap for the Unsuspecting Protester: A Pre-Award Agency-Level Protest Is Functionally Denied as of the Closing Date for Receipt of Proposals, Even if the Agency Actually Denies it Later

Generally, a GAO protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is timely if filed within 10 days after the denial of an agency-level protest, “even if filed after bid opening or the closing time for receipt of proposals.”  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(3).  Accordingly, the salient consideration for determining when that 10-day clock begins to run is when the agency denies the agency-level protest.  But in Marathon Medical Corp., B-422168.2, February 14, 2024, GAO held that if an agency has not ruled on a pre-award agency-level protest as of the closing date for receipt of proposals, then the protest is deemed denied as of that date—and the protester’s clock for filing a GAO protest begins to run—even if the agency later issues an actual decision denying the protest. ...

|

Anuj's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.27.24

Yet Another Timeliness Trap for the Unsuspecting Protester: A Pre-Award Agency-Level Protest Is Functionally Denied as of the Closing Date for Receipt of Proposals, Even if the Agency Actually Denies it Later

Generally, a GAO protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is timely if filed within 10 days after the denial of an agency-level protest, “even if filed after bid opening or the closing time for receipt of proposals.”  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(3).  Accordingly, the salient consideration for determining when that 10-day clock begins to run is when the agency denies the agency-level protest.  But in Marathon Medical Corp., B-422168.2, February 14, 2024, GAO held that if an agency has not ruled on a pre-award agency-level protest as of the closing date for receipt of proposals, then the protest is deemed denied as of that date—and the protester’s clock for filing a GAO protest begins to run—even if the agency later issues an actual decision denying the protest. ...